I'm sure you could find studies stating the opposite too. that's kind of the problem with studies, you can basically prove whatever point you are trying to make.

I'm not saying SAHM's are better than working moms or anything like that but I don't put too much stock in anything "studies" say these days.

So what do you put stock in? Anecdotes? If the study is done by an impartial source (tough to find in some disciplines, easier in others), with a large sample size and impartial measurement, then I tend to trust it over "My mom did this and it worked so I'll do it too."

I mean, if you measure 10000 high school seniors' SAT scores across the country and break them apart by working moms/stay at home moms, that's a pretty good study to analyze long term cognitive effects. If you look in a single neighborhood at 100 kids and base ability on grades in school, that's a pretty shoddy one.

The number one indicator of cognitive ability in children is financial level of the parents. Second is their parents' education level. (You could easily argue that those two are rather closely tied together). There are really cool studies conducted in just about any country you could have interest in documenting that moms going to work has zero effect on the kid's development. It's far, far more important that mom is happy and content in whatever path she chooses. If work is going to make her feel like she's abandoning her kid, or stress her out from trying to do it all, she shouldn't do it. If staying home is going to make her feel like she's not an asset or overwhelm her, she shouldn't do it. Kiddos pick up on that very quickly.

I was just saying my mom did, IMO, a great job. How she did as a mom really has no bearing on how anyone else chooses to mother.

Though it has a bearing on how I choose to mother. Or rather, on how I've chosen to not be a mother so far. I am not at this time prepared to make the sacrifices I would need to make in order to be the kind of mother I would expect myself to be. Again, a personal decision that does not change whether anyone else in the world is a good parent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparks19

no one is saying anything otherwise. not one person has said that stay at home moms are superior but there seems to be this idea that we all just pull a "peg bundy" and sit around eating bon bons all day.

So what do you put stock in? Anecdotes? If the study is done by an impartial source (tough to find in some disciplines, easier in others), with a large sample size and impartial measurement, then I tend to trust it over "My mom did this and it worked so I'll do it too."

I mean, if you measure 10000 high school seniors' SAT scores across the country and break them apart by working moms/stay at home moms, that's a pretty good study to analyze long term cognitive effects. If you look in a single neighborhood at 100 kids and base ability on grades in school, that's a pretty shoddy one.

The number one indicator of cognitive ability in children is financial level of the parents. Second is their parents' education level. (You could easily argue that those two are rather closely tied together). There are really cool studies conducted in just about any country you could have interest in documenting that moms going to work has zero effect on the kid's development. It's far, far more important that mom is happy and content in whatever path she chooses. If work is going to make her feel like she's abandoning her kid, or stress her out from trying to do it all, she shouldn't do it. If staying home is going to make her feel like she's not an asset or overwhelm her, she shouldn't do it. Kiddos pick up on that very quickly.

Anyway, I do think you're right that overall,the mom's emotional health is of primary importance to her children's emotional health, regardless of whether she stays home or goes to work.

For me, yeah staying at home is a lot of work. But, most of my previous jobs were in day care or as a nanny. The nanny jobs were hard because in addition to doing SAHM stuff I had to do housekeeping, and most of my bosses expected dinner to be made and their house to look like Sunset magazine at the end of the day. Then I'd go home and have to do the same thing over again. It was especially exhausting when I had my own kids tagging along to work. It's a huge relief to only have to worry about one house and one set of kids now. Well, sort of... I live with my 4 year old niece and 1 year old nephew too now. lol

The reason I don't put much stock in studies is because there are so many that contradict the other. I am sure you could find studies that prove the exact opposite of the one you read. Plus people are so different from one another that I don't know how you can say exactly what and why each person is the way they are, without finding specific character traits to base the study on. In other words it seems they would have to pick and choose the "type" of person to support their hypothesis and leve out others that don't. Just doesn't seem like the kid if thing where you could say "see this is how it is for everyone because my study says so"

I put stock in my experiences with my own life and the lives of others i observe. My mother was not a stay at home mom and I turned out fine (although I guess that could be up for debate LOL) and I am a stay at home mom and I am sure Hannah will also turn out just fine. I don't think one is superior to the other. I think every family is different and thats why I think these kinds of studies are kind of bogus.

__________________

Quote:

“Meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.”

G.K. Chesterton

“Family fun is as necessary to modern living as a kitchen refrigerator.” – Walt Disney

Sometimes I just want to get snarky and say if you think so, then cut back on all the (what I consider) luxuries and do it too!

I've been on both sides of the coin, and even in the middle. With my first baby I worked TWO jobs (a full time and a part time) until he was 9 years old. With my second baby, I was completely stay at home until he started kindergarten, then I worked part time at the school, was home when he was home. By the time he went to second grade I was working at an office. I left about the time he got on the bus and was home about 1/2 hour after he got in. Now I am stay home (last couple years) since getting laid off.

Can't say I've seen a big difference between the two boys so far. My oldest is a very good guy. 22, doesn't use alcohol or drugs, doesn't have a baby or two floating around like so many of his friends. He goes to work every day, attends college classes, pays his bills, and I'm proud of him. So obviously me working 2 jobs didn't turn him into a degenerate, LOL

I have NEVER lacked in work that needed doing. 5 kids, 5 bedroom house, yard, pets, and husband ensures that. Us cutting many luxuries and me staying home also ensures we have family time on the weekends instead of Kevin and I having to work all weekend doing the yard, groceries, laundry, whatever. That part of it IS nice..........it's just the other part that is hectic, LOL

When people would say to me "it must be nice" I always just said "yes it is" seemed to **** them off even more.
I worked for the first 9 months of my sons life, quit work when I got pregnant with the second. I did find it harder going to work than staying home. I enjoyed staying home with my kids and felt lucky that I could afford to.

The reason I don't put much stock in studies is because there are so many that contradict the other. I am sure you could find studies that prove the exact opposite of the one you read. Plus people are so different from one another that I don't know how you can say exactly what and why each person is the way they are, without finding specific character traits to base the study on. In other words it seems they would have to pick and choose the "type" of person to support their hypothesis and leve out others that don't. Just doesn't seem like the kid if thing where you could say "see this is how it is for everyone because my study says so"

I put stock in my experiences with my own life and the lives of others i observe. My mother was not a stay at home mom and I turned out fine (although I guess that could be up for debate LOL) and I am a stay at home mom and I am sure Hannah will also turn out just fine. I don't think one is superior to the other. I think every family is different and thats why I think these kinds of studies are kind of bogus.

I agree, you can find studies done to match whatever your argument is. I think the biggest thing is, who are these people to tell us what's best for our children? Really I don't care what studies say, what your friends/family do, the problem is that everyone wants to tell us how to parent our children, from whether or not they should be in childcare/preschool, what they should eat, what kind of school they should attend, etc, etc. We are the parents and we should do what is best for our children and our family. If that means staying at home, ok, if it means working, ok.

However if you WANT to stay at home DO IT, don't sit there and tell me how you want to but can't afford to stay at home when your husband makes more money than mine does and we manage to make it just fine!

SAHM's are superheros in every way. My wife stayed home with our kids for several years. When the kids were very small, I had my regular job, took on a waitering job at night plus mowed lawns on the side in the summers so that she'd be able to do that. So the "must be nice" thing drives me especially crazy. We made a choice that the kids would get the "mom time" and besides, if she went back to work, after daycare, she'd be pretty much working full time for a net of about 40 bucks a week. Economically, it made better sense for her not to return to work.

__________________
When things don't go your way, stop and think, "Problem, or inconvenience?" - with apologies to Robert Fulghum

if she went back to work, after daycare, she'd be pretty much working full time for a net of about 40 bucks a week. Economically, it made better sense for her not to return to work.

I hear this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true for the majority of the population (at least, the college educated population). (Not saying it wasn't for you).

Day care here is some of the highest in the country--up to $2000/month per infant in the top facilities. But then there are discounts for multiple kids, it's cheaper if you use a home care facility, etc. Lots of people do nanny shares around here, and it's very possible to find great child care for $1200/month. Suppose you have 2 kids, so now you're paying $2000/month (it's less once one is out of diapers or no longer an infant). $2k*12 = $24k. Most people make way more than $24k, even after taxes. (The MEDIAN household income here is $110k) Once you start talking 4-5 kids, it absolutely doesn't make financial sense to go to the office, but if you've only got 2 kids, fiscally it makes sense to work. Especially when you take into account promotions, seniority, the effect taking 5+ years off from your career is going to have when you try to be rehired into the work force, etc.

People claim that going to work costs money, since you have to commute, buy new clothes, eat lunch, etc--but I bring my lunch to work (same lunch I'd eat at home), average maybe $500/year on new clothes, and commute all of 7 miles. The expense isn't very much.

It's not a financial decision though--in most cases, it's an emotional one. Which is completely, 100%, totally fine.

I hear this argument a lot, but I don't think it's true for the majority of the population (at least, the college educated population). (Not saying it wasn't for you).

Day care here is some of the highest in the country--up to $2000/month per infant in the top facilities. But then there are discounts for multiple kids, it's cheaper if you use a home care facility, etc. Lots of people do nanny shares around here, and it's very possible to find great child care for $1200/month. Suppose you have 2 kids, so now you're paying $2000/month (it's less once one is out of diapers or no longer an infant). $2k*12 = $24k. Most people make way more than $24k, even after taxes. (The MEDIAN household income here is $110k) Once you start talking 4-5 kids, it absolutely doesn't make financial sense to go to the office, but if you've only got 2 kids, fiscally it makes sense to work. Especially when you take into account promotions, seniority, the effect taking 5+ years off from your career is going to have when you try to be rehired into the work force, etc.

People claim that going to work costs money, since you have to commute, buy new clothes, eat lunch, etc--but I bring my lunch to work (same lunch I'd eat at home), average maybe $500/year on new clothes, and commute all of 7 miles. The expense isn't very much.

It's not a financial decision though--in most cases, it's an emotional one. Which is completely, 100%, totally fine.

For us, it was 100% true, as my wife, at the time, was only earning approximately $200 a week take home (she is not college educated). Daycare was $160 a week. She'd have been, essentially, working for $1 an hour. It made zero sense for her to go back to work at that point.

__________________
When things don't go your way, stop and think, "Problem, or inconvenience?" - with apologies to Robert Fulghum